I applaud the man SKL because he is at the same point as 25% of the country is. We HAVE nothing left to lose. What difference does it make
now?

I respectfully disagree, but I will admit that this may be a state level differance. I am unsure how it works outside of Texas. My answers regarding
your points below...

Ah Texas. Texas and Washington are by far the most ludicrous when it comes to Mortgages (and renting for that matter) .. in the end, it's all red
tape.

In reality, the deed is held in trust. The trustee, at least in my case, is a third party title company that has no ownership relationship with my
lender.

In order to attain your deed, the mortgage contract must be fulfilled. If it is unfulfilled or you void the contract, the bank is the receiver of the
deed. This is different from a Lien, because in a Lien is the property is sold off due to you unable to collect debts (say a contractor you couldn't
pay, or a Home Equity Line of Credit) the funds used to pay off those Lien holders are primary, all secondary funds are given to you.

If you owe $10,000 on a home, and simply cannot make those payments, the bank takes your house and sells it for $250,000 .... you get nothing.

This is incorrect for my situation as well. My taxes are funded through escrow. If the taxes are not paid by the bank, for whatever reason, the tax
authorities come after me, not the bank. It is always my responsibility to see that those taxes are paid. This is evidence also by the fact that Texas
will very quickly foreclose on a property that is delinquent on property taxes.

No. You fail to understand. (I worked specifically with tax and insurance escrows fyi) a bank will pay in whole an entire municipalities property
tax, whether or not the escrow was appropriately funded. During the audit of the banks accounts, the bank will then flag all those who didn't pay,
some states will refund a banks tax and go after the resident, or force the bank to pay and either collect for the bank or have the bank collect (via
heavy fees). Depends on the contract. Almost always in this situation the homeowner simply isn't paying anything, and is probably going to be
foreclosed.. the bank still has to pay property tax on homes with no occupier. Also, in nearly all contracts the home owner agrees to furnish taxes
to the state in the event they cannot fund their own escrow, there is also a clause that allows the home owner to pay without the escrow, however
banks don't like that because the city can but in, they prefer to just pay off the city.

Actually, I can speak very well to this. I had a fire recently (12/10) and not only did my mortgage company did not get any of the insurance
distribution, they really didn't even care when I told them. The only thing they needed to know was that I would continue making my monthly
payment.

Once again, you are either wrong, or your total claim was below the banks threshold. MOST banks use $10,000 as a typical threshold, any damage
(structural) above that (even by a dollar) will have two or three (three if you have more than one mortgage with a different bank on the same
property) the BANK must sign off on the check.. you sign the check, send it to the bank, the bank signs it and A, sends it back and you cash it or B,
the bank puts it into an Escrow. Some areas are given special allowance, such as hurricane victims or flood victims have much higher thresholds, like
20-25K. any structural damage goes through a process of investigation, and usually a three stage release of funds. It's actually the most tedious
banking process I have ever witnessed. In your Mortgage contract there is a clause detailing the homeowner must pay for home owners insurance, and
that funds will be directed towards the bank, not the homeowner. Number one question I received when I worked for that department was "Show me where
it says the bank gets my insurance monies!" To which I politely point out a big paragraph in their Mortgage. That contract they never bothered to
read, but signed anyways.

Technicalities aside... and to stay on topic ..what the guy did, was still immature. It shouldn't be condoned.

You seem like you may be one of the many ATS teens on this board, because you have not lived long enough to understand what a scam the banking system
is.

It is called a fractional reserves system. If they have 10,000 dollars they can show electronically that they can loan another 90,000 that is not
really there.

Only ten percent of the banks money is real.

Why in the world do you think they can take such losses when it comes to foreclosing?

Deny ignorance.

Further education. When you buy a house with a mortgage and pay it off, you are actually paying 2 to 3 times if not more for your home. If a person
bought a house for 100,000 and sold it 30 years later for 130,000, that person actually believes they made 30,000 on the house.

In the mean time the banks are laughing their way to the bank, because they profited at least 200,000 in interest alone. Yes folks, you pay more in
interest than you do for the house itself. I looked at my loan, and it was true. That doesn't include all the costs of repairs the house needed over
the years either.

That 30,000 you paid doesn't even begin to cover what you really paid for it.

Guess what, that 200,000 that wasn't there in the first place, was created out of thin air by a little word called interest.

You want the type of money the banks make, then you have to become the bank yourself, if your willing to take the chance. Yes, you can buy and house,
and sell it with owner financing. That is where you become the bank, and collect all the interest.

The only other way to make money with houses is to buy way below the house's value. Either fix it up and sell, or wholesale the house. You have seen
the show flip this house? Just don't try to buy a house and sell it at an inflated price that was inflated by someone or several people you bribed or
paid off to lie about the house.

Do every thing honestly and legal in your area, and you will have no problems. That is if you have the guts to try. Tip, getting a mentor in real
estate investing is a must.

Let me ask you, what do you think it should cost them to loan money? And what are the risks?

Do you think they should loan you $200,000 free? This is totally about speculation in a market that can crash like anything else. Unfortunately most
people are linked to equity lines of credit on their homes. Or they got burnt when they tried to get a 2nd home and defaulted when we were at our
peak. I know quite a few that ended up like that here in FL.

And fractional reserve banking wouldn't exist without the GREED OF THE CONSUMER. I bought a new car.. and I'm getting ready to buy a new house ..
I'm going to be using fractional reserve banking to further my quality of life, even though I absolutely HATE banks, and their processes, and what
our government did.. but here I am, a greedy individual perpetuating the cycle.

Seriously.. unless you are loan free, and never accepted a loan like a mortgage or a car loan .. you fed the beast.

Well I def. do not set the precedent in living the American dream lol, and I have no mortgage, so I shouldn't really be talking (haha). But
seriously, when EVERYONE is on the same side it's already too late, you are smoked. It happens everyday to speculators in the market and this time
it just so happened to hit 80% of the American population.

On a side note, while doing some research .. the only loophole I found where you borrow money for a house but cannot be foreclosed on: Buy land and
build a house. You don't get a deed for a house, you get it for the land (except Condo's) .. so you buy land, then build a house. there's no
transaction of a deed, so if you stopped paying your land cannot be foreclosed (unless in the mortgage you sign over the land for the money.. which
some do) .. yay for loopholes! (However, the construction company can sue you till you bleed and the courts liquidate your assets)

I would have got a second mortgage to buy another house, sell that house for more, and to start making payments on the mortgage, one house at a time.
I wouldn't know in this economy if it's a good idea, I don't know what kind of troubles he has with his bank. Oweing a bank 160,000 dollars with
added interest and couldn't afford to pay it off would be very frustrating, and the banks telling him that they are taking it away, and paying him
back 70,000 isn't gonna settle where he's gonna live, I mean he could've settled for the 70,000 dollars, he would've had to fix up another house
than sell that house. It would find it a major hassle. So what the hell, eh? Might as well enjoy and destroy your own property while it is still
yours. If he goes to jail it will be better than living on the street, but then again I always dreamed of living with the animals in the wild.

The question to ask is why houses seem so outrageously high-priced? It is the one necessity that you can't afford to pay upfront and therefore, no
choice but to go into debt, unless you live with your parents or relatives.

Let's say on average, a person makes about $30000 a year, pays taxes on 1/3rd of it, let's say that person got lucky enough to last at his job for
20 years, that means he made about $400,000 in his lifetime. If the interest means that he will end up paying the house 3 times it's really worth,
then that means he can only afford a house worth no more than $30000, which would leave him with around $300000 for the rest of the necessity, for
"his lifetime," otherwise, he will be sure to run into financial trouble at some point.

Originally posted by OZtracized
Wouldn't the bank sell his $350 000 home (for less of course for a quick sale), take the $160 000 he owes, plus the usual fees and charges then give
him the rest? He would have been left with say $150 000 but a bulldozed house is only worth the land it once stood on which probably about equals the
bank's share.

Seems like a silly move.

That's NOT how banks work

The man has taken 'a morgage' for f.e. 30 yrs. The banks will gain MORE money when they see this contract go on till the end. There is less to gain
for them when they would pay the man lots of money after they would have sold his house. They would make up a new contract with the new owner and let
the old owner still pay to the end of his 30 year contract. Thats how they work!

The guy just had enough after 10 years of brow beating. The person at the bank responsible for the foreclosure who stated they could get more for a
foreclosure was probably looking at a bonus for himself, now he's probably looking for a new job as this is clearly a financial loss for the bank
...lol

That is the problem, its the banks property! Not yours(until its payed off) Which is why i want to build my own house. I'm sure it won't be cheap,
but if it means i avoid problems like this that happen every day to every type of person.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.